battlefieldfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Name Colours
15:31, April 4, 2011 (UTC) Honestly, I'm not that bothered. I still believe it's a violation of AEAE, but meh. If everyone agrees with it, then OK. That'd be fine by me. In terms of colours, I'd suggest maybe using the medals stuff that we have. So, (for example) Rollbacks have blue/grey names, Admins Gold, and B'crats black names (for their veteranness or stuff), or another variation. - 15:45, April 4, 2011 (UTC) :It is not a violation of AEAE. The purpose, as stated here, is to make it easy for users to determine who to go to for administrative assistance. Similar coloration systems exist on many major forums. - Bovell (talk) 21:14, April 4, 2011 (UTC) ::To me it is, and always will be. Just because many people disagree with my personal views on a subject doesn't mean I am wrong. - 21:17, April 4, 2011 (UTC) :::I would not leave policies open to that much interpretation. - Bovell (talk) 00:26, April 5, 2011 (UTC) ::::I think room for a bit of interpretation is OK. I obviously don't agree that it breaks policy or I wouldn't've brought it up, but it is a legitimate concern and I think we should listen to Pete, not just dicount his view. - 13:53, April 5, 2011 (UTC) :::::If the proposal was in violation of AEAE, then I don't think the discussion would be allowed to go much further. It's common sense that proposals should conform to policies. :::::That being said, a "violation" implies that the proposal is breaking the established rule, which to me says that two administrators have completely different ideas of what AEAE means to them. AEAE isn't really a policy that users could be blocked for violating, but it does make me raise the question if there are more policies that are interpreted differently by members of the administrative team. - Bovell (talk) 20:39, April 5, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Of course different admins are going to interpret rules and policies in different ways. It's like a British person interpreting US-English as incorrectly spelt, and an American interpreting UK-English as incorrectly spelt! Different interpretation of rules contribute to what makes a wiki a wiki, a resource created by ordinary people for the ordinary people who need it's information. It gives the information character, vive, and stops things from being too uniform and dehumanised, as if a programmed computer had written it. ::::::According to what I interpret from what you are saying above, you're point is that everyone should have the same interpretation of every policy or rule on the wiki, and people who disagree because of personal views should be made to see the "accepted" view on the policy/guideline (although your views on what you have said may be different, as are BP's). ::::::Is it really against the "established rule" for me to make public something that I believe in? Is it so criminal to make clear my views on a subject just as I did when this came up on the CoD wiki, and the Homefront wiki? Does it damage your honour to see someone else disagree with you over a debate about changing the colours of certain users names to help organise the wiki? (reiteration of point above there. This is becoming good practice for my English exam May 16th. Good side effects!) ::::::If I were to put up a proposal that you believed was a violation of a policy, such as a elected coding person that everyone had to ask for help (which can be interpreted by someone to violate BF:WHAT?), would you voice your opinion on the subject, or would you back down to what could be seen as "the established rule" on that policy? - 21:05, April 5, 2011 (UTC) :::::::A policy is a site-wide rule. We are not dealing with the Constitution where we debate what the founding fathers were trying to say to us. You can only extend interpretation of policies only so far, as over time, we will encounter users who have ideas of what the policy means to them (which is absolutely fine, per AEAE). :::::::But there's a point where you have to stop. It's been pointed out numerous times on wikis that I've edited on that it is the purpose of the policy that is important, not how each one of us interprets the title or the wording. :::::::For example: "All editors are equal." Hmm, I suppose that means everyone should be granted administrative tools (or relevant to this case, have their usernames highlighted). No, it doesn't work that way, and that's not the purpose of AEAE. The purpose of AEAE is to ensure that administrators do not overpower the users (or even vice versa), and I fail to see how or in what way this proposal would be in "violation" of it (or as it seems, in "violation" of your interpretation). :::::::If you don't agree with the purpose of a policy, that's what these forums are for - to discuss site-wide changes. All editors are equal, and thus, everyone is welcome to suggest changes to established policies. :::::::On the Call of Duty Wiki, it once was that our blocking policy did not define what a "short block" was, and thus, everyone on the admin team had different interpretations of what a short block was. For some it was a day, others a week, but in any case, it was not consistent. We moved to revise our blocking policy because of this, as having ten different interpretations of the same rule doesn't work. :::::::There are only problems waiting for us if interpretations of policies become the rules themselves. It's a fairly well known example that freedom of speech does not entitle you to shout "FIRE!" in the middle of a movie theater when there actually isn't one. It's not a question of belief or honor, it's to prevent people from gaming the system. Yes, people are at liberty to interpret the policies, but only to a certain extent (otherwise, they aren't really rules are they?). - Bovell (talk) 21:53, April 5, 2011 (UTC) My name had hilite for a few weeks. (buncha killjoys) YuriKaslov 19:01, April 4, 2011 (UTC) :Sorry. If it makes you feel better, you could say you inspired this... - 13:53, April 5, 2011 (UTC) ::We could call it the YuriKaslov user hilite system if it makes ya feel better... - 21:05, April 5, 2011 (UTC) :::Oh, but wouldn't that "violate" AEAE? At least, that was my interpretation... - Bovell (talk) 21:54, April 5, 2011 (UTC) ::::Not sure there's any need for that, Bovell - 22:11, April 5, 2011 (UTC) :::::Only making a point. - Bovell (talk) 22:41, April 5, 2011 (UTC) ::::::A disruptive and unhelpful one - 14:07, April 6, 2011 (UTC) :::::::Disruptive? Disruptive to what? A tangent unrelated to the proposal? I am allowed to illustrate my point, and I did nothing that harmed the current discussion. - Bovell (talk) 19:51, April 6, 2011 (UTC) :::::::BP and Bovell, you are both right yet both wrong. My comment was simply a piece of simple (and slightly sarcastic) 'banter', designed to add a bit of humour into the discussion. Bovell interprets it one way, which at the time of him posting his reply was a justified point considering the above debate about why I saw this (in my opinion) as an AEAE violation. BP then interprets Bovell's statement as a possible beginning of a flame war/argument and tries to calm it down, and so on and so forth. Let's calm this down, and maybe expand this discussion, getting some of the other editors involved and looking at their ideas/views on the topic. - 18:43, April 7, 2011 (UTC) To bring the topic back on track, I'd like to take a quote from the discussion the Call of Duty Wiki had on administrative username highlighting: If anything, this proposal could only benefit the wiki further. - Bovell (talk) 19:51, April 6, 2011 (UTC) I'm hoping not to restart the argument, but I guess this proposal is dead? - 10:36, June 27, 2011 (UTC) :Well, I honestly didn't give any input, but I don't really care, and the debate is pretty dead, so yeah... SSDGFCTCT9(Talk) 20:36, July 3, 2011 (UTC) ::I will take on the proposal if it is "dead," but this is a clear case of consensus taking too long or losing interest. - Bovell Talk | 23:53, July 6, 2011 (UTC) :::How about we just vote on it and finish this once and for all? SSDGFCTCT9(Talk) 15:09, July 7, 2011 (UTC) ::::I don't think there's much point. There doesn't seem to be any consensus, does there Bovell? - 15:11, July 7, 2011 (UTC) :::::According to you, this is a democracy. - Bovell Talk | 15:22, July 7, 2011 (UTC) Revival of proposal This is quickly becoming another example of a proposal losing interest or being abandoned completely (without even a proper closure). I will take on the proposal myself if we seriously cannot finish what we started. The leading argument in any user highlight discussion is always that it shouldn't be allowed since all editors are equal. User highlight makes it easier for other users to identify administrators, which, as was pointed out by a colleague of mine at the Call of Duty Wiki, does not make them unequal. Rather, it assists users in finding the right people to ask for help. You can scroll up to see the quote that I am referring to. AEAE does not mean equality in every regard, since, not only is it impossible, but it's not the purpose of the policy. User highlight is not a status symbol, and if you think it is, then we should also have a talk about admin userboxes. Especially considering that the Battlefield Wiki's version of AEAE is exactly the same of how it was at the Call of Duty Wiki when we passed user highlight, I don't see how the proposal can be thrown out the window for a policy violation. Regardless, I propose (or re-propose w/e) that we add user highlight CSS coding to our wiki for the purpose of assisting new users. - Bovell Talk | 17:39, July 11, 2011 (UTC) Voting *'Support' - As nominator. - Bovell Talk | 17:39, July 11, 2011 (UTC) *'Support' - . Although I was prepared to let this fade away, I still think it's a good idea, and I still think it isn't contradictory with equality - 18:31, July 11, 2011 (UTC) *'Support' - Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 18:38, July 11, 2011 (UTC) *'Support' - why not? On the regard of it violating AEAE, that's nonsense really.. SSDGFCTCT9(Talk) 00:03, July 12, 2011 (UTC) Well, it's been a week, so that's voting closed. Rather unjustly, given the discussion above, we have unanimous approval, 4-0. I'll set about implementing it - I'm going gold for admins, green for b'crats and dark blue for rollbacks/trusted users. I'll leave this forum un-archived for a few days in case anyone wants to comment further, on colours, for example. - 22:26, July 18, 2011 (UTC) :Well, the dark blue doesn't stand out that much from the standard cyan that links have right now. It may be better to choose something else, unless you were aiming on the point that it wouldn't stand out as much as admins/bureaucrats. :And as for bureaucrats, as long as it isn't eyesore lime green... I don't like lime green :< SSDGFCTCT9(Talk) 22:39, July 18, 2011 (UTC) ::I think my sig's color would work for you. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 22:41, July 18, 2011 (UTC) :::I did try to pick something less obvious with the dark blue, but you're right, it isn't obvious enough. I'm also wondering whether the green's too lime and the gold's not gold enough. Damn colour codes! - 22:44, July 18, 2011 (UTC) I think this is a good idea there's no opposing points even though I'll never get admin. It's need a colour code green = admin gold bureaucrats and blue means average contributor and sorry for grammar mistake my computer resets the screen again every time I type Slopijoe aka - 'M14 user of death 23:33, July 18, 2011 (UTC)' ::::A couple things. Firstly, the green is really obnoxious. Try just "color:green" rather than a hexadecimal color. Secondly, I thought we were getting dark blue, not light blue? And thirdly, it's sort of annoying because the thing overrides my personal .css coloring. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 22:57, July 18, 2011 (UTC) :::::I was just trying out different variations of colours. As SSD pointed out, the dark blue didn't really stand out enough, the light blue does so more. I'll try your suggestion for the green... - 23:00, July 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Maybe we could have silver for bureaucrats? Either that, or a darker green. SSDGFCTCT9(Talk) 23:03, July 18, 2011 (UTC) :::::::When I was making color-coded names, I found the silver to be a bit annoying on white backgrounds because it's harder to see. Maybe we could try 006600. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 23:05, July 18, 2011 (UTC) :::::::Silver was my first choice for it, but silver just looks nearly black: Silver. I've changed the green to Yuri's suggestion, is that better or not? I'll try out 006600... - 23:10, July 18, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::Actually, I prefer the non-hex green, there's not much in it though - Green vs 006600 - 23:18, July 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::::003300 is much darker, almost black as well. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 23:19, July 18, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::::Typically it's green for sysops, light blue or cyan for bureaucrats, and gold for Wikia staff. - Bovell Talk | 00:37, July 19, 2011 (UTC) Uh, two small requests: #Could my bot be given some sort of hilite as well? #Could my hilite be removed? I know it's a bit of an odd request, but I don't feel that I need hilite when I only have rollback. 20:15, July 23, 2011 (UTC) ::Sorry, I forgot completely about the bot. Do you want it to have it's own colour? Any preferences. As for your own, I didn't expect anyone to opt out, but if it's what you want... - 20:34, July 23, 2011 (UTC) :::Eeerrrm, why would your bot get a hilite? Granted, it does have admin rights, but the whole point of the hilite is that users can more easily find admins and other users. Directing attention (even as little as it may be, considering its edits don't appear in the recent activity) to the bot would seem a bit weird, no? They'd be contacting a user that would never reply. SSDGFCTCT9(Talk) 16:14, July 24, 2011 (UTC) I'm going to archive this, any further debate can take place at Forum:Name Colours II - 18:35, July 26, 2011 (UTC) }}